IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Martin Duke's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-tls-33: (with COMMENT)

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Tue, 29 December 2020 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333A13A13AE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 04:45:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9doFY6REGr7O for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 04:45:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62b.google.com (mail-ej1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970C53A13AC for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 04:45:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id jx16so17940826ejb.10 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 04:45:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oUjetFdCuB1ohSpzglhf+89i0HikVU0nFXp9oRu3Eek=; b=lbfVqL+Tq5RxaiTCBvA29V4B29g3UIxbS10qgZ3buWmW0Nl6PIjYVr0a0B8ICpZ3W7 mUT+uTSflEhlV0YHdv18Ga80jePtFT/0NYI7DZ3NoqPrNRIMkl+i1ee+0HllFr80zgu/ cFjHSmTyMDgFgFUTF4aboka4mdQ3PNL84WHEeumABuydWyDxT5r38t4wYl0mgUQwIMfI zX77ybiEmLHGhthm1o7+DCRB6AZKqCBmLOp8z5+WP86F8hxpi51TaqRwiJqGrJwqR2ez Ebd3qHDF8m+lD3tsOFuNt8s1+2fTXspdFrdudLFIWu4yXht7ePOYR4dC/9tLE7uyKiQ3 NDbg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oUjetFdCuB1ohSpzglhf+89i0HikVU0nFXp9oRu3Eek=; b=keDvYG/zK3vcXo8zNAbfGBRqCWZEvQEjBFKolIqRa0djdV/POGSG/aykwhtlfRETPY uABBxeIdJzCvPhzVr8buzAgFBSXyAEVtrnRXxlwEugX+VMHxDEfsBBvkXTfIZAT+XJSP rF8Ihsq28oZM+g55wEsWcPPzNfXqMDrNMJLgxNAg8XpAf2aHeu34swfVXjqF0W2wGR+l qcVcFuead/MyPzv9aut3WOyOfKHx0WizRBdjJdKAkM3uUWQ0zLQt3A2V80bzBMqjnkdW Hd0yrI08Rm0kMpx2JpL0UzHGuwjE2gPN4xjUWW3/R21/xDfjHiHf3v3ja11y54DEjM12 hyCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+NBVHWZpJT95RlHv7PrK8FjO+g3ccPkDAjLlIsIo6loN7z5Ln hT75MYKMWw1KczhKHCt9181CVFqjE7gJUti9MOw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLiHUiRWcHzOuGZFSFNvkIIYWs9wxVUgK0sQVUiGUNmwVwzEAqllaX7ONj5U07h2L7lolbEYdgjpbhoUNP0Lw=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:aec6:: with SMTP id me6mr45067415ejb.542.1609245905942; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 04:45:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160867913882.9107.11037319310588558127@ietfa.amsl.com> <cbda1762-2a11-4d5b-91d2-b81ae5cb4359@www.fastmail.com> <CAM4esxQJLN1xcZQp0KoqiUStjwgwU9g5iLyygKFdMVRf4tcPLA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM4esxQJLN1xcZQp0KoqiUStjwgwU9g5iLyygKFdMVRf4tcPLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:44:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oaLGUYs50311LoR7_S-3X8ssNEO5ihcHbzOLO5qR0X-wA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Martin Duke's Yes on draft-ietf-quic-tls-33: (with COMMENT)
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000947bf005b799c29d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/eehaqiIci9XSf8yoAkY40ELJszQ>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:45:09 -0000

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the comments. I've captured each comment as a new issue on the
QUIC WG base-drafts Github repository and tagged you in each one [1], [2].
See in-line response for more details. We'll be tracking all IESG comments
on the Transport document under
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/milestone/24

Cheers,
Lucas
On behalf of QUIC WG Chairs

[1] - https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4465
[2] - https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4466

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:42 AM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> wrote:

> The PRs look good!
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 4:44 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>
>> > Secondly, it is not clear to me what protection this offers beyond the
>> DCID
>> > field in the actual Retry Packet (which corresponds to the SCID of the
>> Initial).
>>
>> The SCID of the Initial might be empty (it is in many cases), which
>> doesn't provide enough entropy to prevent spoofing of Retry otherwise.
>>
>>
> Yes, of course. Thanks.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email